On today’s Fightin Words podcast: Constitutional scholar Dave Benner joins the show to discuss a compact making its way through state legislatures which would effectively nullify the Electoral College.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

(12:57 minutes long; 12.43 MB file size. Want to download instead of streaming? Right click here to download this show to your hard drive. Subscribe through iTunes or RSS feed.)

Historically, states have decided, within their own jurisdictions, to adopt the "winner take all" electoral practice. I don't believe it was the Founder's intent that the electoral college system should be changed by an interpretation of state compact. It is my opinion that a change to a national popular vote should be by Constitutional amendment. I agree that the electoral system as practiced today is not fair, but with more than half of the population concentrated in the largest cities, it would only allow further corruption of the current "vote buying" party elections we have now. Just something to think about, but a study of the Founder's opinions expressed at the Constitutional Convention, prior to signing the document, showed an overwhelming desire that voting citizens should have "skin in the game," to the central government from legislating the corrupt system of buying votes like they do now.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

National Popular Vote preserves the Electoral College (mandated by the Constitution) and replaces state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes enacted after the Constitution that more than 2/3rds of Americans have opposed since 1944, to ensure that every voter is equal, and politically relevant to the candidates, everywhere, in every presidential election, and guarantees the candidate who receives the most popular votes will get the constitutionally mandated majority of electoral votes and become president.

The concept of national voting for anything is contrary to the intent of the Constitution. The Republic was designed and implemented as a union of the states, not as a single entity. Congress's representation, especially the Senate's two-fer setup, is designed to maintain the states as viable members of a union rather than as only administrative divisions.There were a number of reasons for this, none of which seem to me to have been altered by 200+ years of experience. A specific reason was to ensure that large states didn't overwhelm small states. Another was an abiding suspicion, borne out by various ballot measures, that voting by all was likely to lead to majoritarian tyranny.

The bill preserves state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

The United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

State laws have given the people the right to vote for President in all 50 states and DC.

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state.

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored.9 states determined the 2012 election.10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now.24 of the 27 lowest population states, that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.4 out of 5 Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Democratic party activists slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Republican party activists slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party's dedicated activists.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

The elections in my State are decided by the voters in my State, not the voters in other States.If your illegal scheme is enacted, what other State votes will you attempt to subvert by outside votes next?

A survey of New York voters showed 79% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

By gender, support was 89% among women and 69% among men.

By age, support was 60% among 18-29 year olds, 74% among 30-45 year olds, 85% among 46-65 year olds, and 82% for those older than 65.

Support was 86% among Democrats, 66% among Republicans, 78% among Independence Party members (representing 8% of respondents), 50% among Conservative Party members (representing 3% of respondents), 100% among Working Families Party members (representing 2% of respondents), and 7% among Others (representing 7% of respondents).

The National Popular Vote bill was first introduced in New York in 2006.

In 2010, the New York Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill, with over two-thirds of both political parties supporting the bill in a 52-7 roll call. The vote was 22-5 among Senate Republicans (with 3 not voting)

In 2011, the Republican-controlled New York Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 47–13 margin, with Republicans favoring the bill by 21–11 and Democrats favoring it by 26–2. Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party favored the bill 17–7

In 2013, the New York State Assembly approved the National Popular Vote bill by a 100–40 margin. A total of 78 Democrats and 22 Republicans voted in favor of the bill.

On March 25, 2014, the New York Senate passed the bill by a 57–4 margin, and the Assembly passed the bill 100–32. The bill sponsored by Republican Sen. Griffo and Democratic Assemblyman Dinowitz.

In the Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27–2; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party by 26–2; Democrats supported the bill 30–2.

In the Assembly, Republicans supported the bill 21–18; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative party supported the bill 18–16.

On April 15, 2014, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo signed the National Popular Vote bill.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (19), New Jersey (14), Maryland (11), California (55), Massachusetts (10), New York (29), Vermont (3), Rhode Island (4), and Washington (13). These 11 jurisdictions have 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

“The bottom line is that the electors from those states who cast their ballot for the nationwide vote winner are completely accountable (to the extent that independent agents are ever accountable to anyone) to the people of those states. The National Popular Vote states aren’t delegating their Electoral College votes to voters outside the state; they have made a policy choice about the substantive intelligible criteria (i.e., national popularity) that they want to use to make their selection of electors. There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents them from making the decision that, in the Twenty-First Century, national voter popularity is a (or perhaps the) crucial factor in worthiness for the office of the President.” - Vikram David Amar - professor and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the UC Davis School of Law (King Hall). Before becoming a professor, he clerked for Judge William A. Norris of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Justice Harry Blackmun at the Supreme Court of the United States.

A true NPV eliminates large state influence. The statewide, winner take all votes are not NPV. NPV might reflect regionalism. It would, in the current blend of voting patterns dilute coastal and big city dominance by democrats.

State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaigns and to presidents once in office.

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaigns, taken for granted, or written off.

Only 3 of the 27 smallest states have any political clout in presidential elections now.

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.

"Battleground" States are determined by the political preferences of the inhabitants, not by raw demographic numbers.You can throw whatever wall of statistics around that you want, but that does not change the reality of the situation, or speak to endorse your illegal alternative.

I have not said battleground states are determined by "raw demographic numbers." Whatever that means.

In general, battleground states have been those states in which the two-party vote for President was between 46% and 54%.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only the handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win.

In 2012, more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in the ten battleground states.

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

In 1960, presidential campaigns paid attention to 35 states. In 2008, Obama only campaigned in 14 states after being nominated. In 2012, the presidential campaigns only cared about 9 swing states.

The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.

States' partisanship is hardening.

19 states (including California with 55 electoral votes) with a total of 242 electoral votes, have voted Democratic, 1992-201213 states with 102 electoral votes have voted Republican, 1992-2012

Some states have not been been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position. In a study before the 2012 election:• 41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2008• 32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2008 • 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2008 • 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2008• 9 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988 • 15 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988

I read through the entire discussion - and note that not a single person identified the major change "National Vote" would make. It completely eliminates the brake on the domination by large states on the Presidential election.

The smallest of States (plus DC) right now is guaranteed 3/538 of the vote. Under "National Vote" - there are some States that you might as well not even bother running an election - they will have no influence whatsoever on the result.

Now, if these people were advocating for 1) an Electoral College based on fractional votes (still with the same number of total votes), and 2) requiring that fractional votes be reported proportionally to the popular vote - they would honestly be eliminating the "unfairness" that is in winner take all States, while keeping the original intent of the Constitution.

One other thing would have to be instituted, however, to make this workable - a requirement for voters to indicate a second choice. The reason that delegates are required to meet by the Constitution was to handle the possibility of no candidate having a majority, and the delegates needing to do some "politicking" to come up with the winner.

There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December in their separate states to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Democratic party activists slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Republican party activists slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party's dedicated activists.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

The Congress meets in joint session in early January to count the electoral votes reported by the states in their Certificates of Ascertainment.

In a situation in which no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes, the election of the President would be thrown into the U.S. House (with each state casting one vote) and the election of the Vice President would be thrown into the U.S. Senate. The millions of popular votes of the country would would not decide the election.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). All the 270+ Electoral College votes from all the states that have enacted the bill would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

Again. Please read and take a moment to comprehend what I am actually saying.

With National Popular Vote, we will continue to vote for electors (as honest intermediaries), who will continue to vote for and elect the President.

The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

I never said faithless electors are a good thing.I showed that they are rare, and that the Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

The Congress meets in joint session in early January to count the electoral votes reported by the states in their Certificates of Ascertainment.

In a situation in which no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes, the election of the President would be thrown into the U.S. House (with each state casting one vote) and the election of the Vice President would be thrown into the U.S. Senate. The millions of popular votes of the country would would not decide the election.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). All the 270+ Electoral College votes from all the states that have enacted the bill would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

Electors are people.To allow for a fractional proportional method, we would have to abolish the Electoral College. That would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

The fractional proportional allocation system does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

Without a constitutional amendment, the office of presidential elector remains. A presidential elector is a person, and a person’s vote cannot be divided into fractions. Each state would have to use a whole-number proportional approach.

Or we just, you know, go with the Constitution rather than a statutory law and increase the number of people in the House of Representatives to be closer to the 1 for 30,000 limit specified in the Constitution.

We can do that by a simple federal law, rather than the illegal multi-state compact intended to subvert the requirements for an actual Amendment that you are promoting.

National Popular Vote IS going with the Constitution.The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."Article I-Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution specifically permits states to enter interstate compacts. In fact, there are hundreds of major compacts currently in force (and thousands of minor ones).

There is nothing about National Popular Vote that requires amending the Constitution. The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

No, it is not.The Constitution declares that electors are chosen at the State level and not the national level.Elections in my State are decided by the voting residents of my States, not by the voting residents of other States.

The Constitution only permits interstate compacts with the consent of Congress.Where is the consent of Congress for your scheme?Oh, that's right, it doesn't exist.That makes your scheme unconstitutional right there.

As even your selectively redacted presentation of the history acknowledges, previous attempts at this have been done by seeking a Constitutional Amendment.That speaks to such an Amendment being required, and not your interstate compact subversion that subverts the rights of voters in the several States.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

I already gave a lengthy explanation that congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent.

Congress typically does not consider interstate compacts until the compact has been enacted by the requisite combination of states. Congress has the option of explicitly consenting to the compact

Previous attempts to ABOLISH the Electoral College have been attempted by seeking a Constitutional Amendment.

National Popular Vote does not abolish the Electoral College. It changes nothing in the Constitution. The bill uses the exclusive power given in the Constitution to the states to determine how to award their electoral votes. The National Popular Vote bill replaces state winner-take-all laws.

The National Popular Vote compact ensures that every voter is equal, and politically relevant to the candidates, everywhere, in every presidential election, and the candidate who receives the most popular votes will become president.

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.

Where you live should not determine how much, if at all, your vote matters.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. They decided the election. None of the 10 most rural states mattered, as usual. Two-thirds of the general-election campaign events (176 of 253) were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).About 80% of the country was ignored --including 24 of the 27 lowest population and medium-small states, and 13 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX.

80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

National Popular Vote is only committed to preserving the Electoral College, while guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate who earns the most votes in all fifty states.

National Popular Vote preserves state boundaries and state control of elections.The Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution permit states to conduct elections in varied ways. Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

Opponents remain stuck on a misconception that the plan would “force” states to give their electoral votes to a candidate that may not have won their state, but this misses the point entirely. The National Popular Vote plan changes the Electoral College from an obstruction of the popular will to a ratifier in that it would always elect the candidate who has won the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Rather than states throwing their votes away, the actual voters themselves are empowered, as each and every one of us would have an equal vote for president – something we are sorely lacking under the Electoral College.

“The bottom line is that the electors from those states who cast their ballot for the nationwide vote winner are completely accountable (to the extent that independent agents are ever accountable to anyone) to the people of those states. The NPV states aren’t delegating their Electoral College votes to voters outside the state; they have made a policy choice about the substantive intelligible criteria (i.e., national popularity) that they want to use to make their selection of electors. There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents them from making the decision that, in the Twenty-First Century, national voter popularity is a (or perhaps the) crucial factor in worthiness for the office of the President.” - Vikram David Amar - professor and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the UC Davis School of Law (King Hall). Before becoming a professor, he clerked for Judge William A. Norris of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Justice Harry Blackmun at the Supreme Court of the United States

Under National Popular Vote, every individual voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every individual vote would be included in the state counts and national count. An individual voter's vote in New York would be counted equally as an individual voter's vote in Wyoming. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area. There is no weighting when counting the votes, as in every other election in the country. All the individual voter's votes are equal and added together. The candidate with the most individual votes (in this case from all 50 states and DC) will win.

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

With National Popular Vote all individual votes will be equal and equally relevant, as in every other election in the country.

National Popular Vote has nothing to do with the relevance of state boundaries for Senators and Representatives.

Again, National Popular Vote is only meant to resolve the problems it’s intended to resolve – it will ensure that every voter is equal, and politically relevant to the candidates, everywhere, in every presidential election, and the candidate who received the most popular votes will become president.

Equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate is explicitly established in the U.S. Constitution. This feature cannot be changed by state law or an interstate compact.

In fact, equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate may not even be amended by an ordinary federal constitutional amendment. Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides: “No State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Thus, this feature of the U.S. Constitution may only be changed by a constitutional amendment approved by unanimous consent of all 50 states.

In contrast, the U.S. Constitution explicitly assigns the power of selecting the manner of appointing presidential electors to the states. The enactment by a state legislature of the National Popular Vote bill is an exercise of a legislature’s existing powers under the U.S. Constitution.

In short, enactment of the National Popular Vote compact has no bearing on the federal constitutional provisions establishing equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate.

Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in the current handful of big states.

With National Popular Vote, when every popular vote counts and matters to the candidates equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn't be about winning a handful of battleground states.

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaigns.

State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaigns and to presidents once in office.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.

No, the power shifts to the handful of States with the most balanced demographic divisions between the two parties.That could be the biggest States or it could be the smallest States or it could just be some middle sized States. It all depends on where people decide to live and what they believe in.

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.

Iowa, Ohio, Florida, and Virginia accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election.

Where you live should not determine how much, if at all, your vote matters.

Charlie Cook reported in 2004: “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.”

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009: “If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

In 1960, presidential campaigns paid attention to 35 states. In 2008, Obama only campaigned in 14 states after being nominated. In 2012, the presidential campaigns only cared about 9 swing states.

The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.

States' partisanship is hardening.

19 states (including California with 55 electoral votes) with a total of 242 electoral votes, have voted Democratic, 1992-201213 states with 102 electoral votes have voted Republican, 1992-2012

Some states have not been been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position. In a study before the 2012 election:• 41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2008• 32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2008 • 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2008 • 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2008• 9 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988 • 15 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988

Irrelevant.No candidate is required by law, custom, or theory to give equal attention to all voters, all districts, and/or all States.You begin with a false premise and come to a worthless conclusion - GIGO.

Of course no candidate is required by law, custom, or theory to give equal attention to all voters, all districts, and/or all States.

Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse the current electoral system where 80% of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now.Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. More than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just the ten states in 2012 where they were not hopelessly behind or safely ahead, and could win the bare plurality of the vote to win all of the state’s electoral votes. Now the majority of Americans, in small, medium-small, average, and large states are ignored. Only 3 of the 27 smallest states receive any attention. None of the 10 most rural states is a battleground state. 24 of the 27 lowest population states, and 16 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX are ignored. That’s over 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans.

Once the conventions are over, presidential candidates now don’t visit or spend resources in 80% of the states. Candidates know the Republican is going to win in safe red states, and the Democrat will win in safe blue states, so they are ignored.

States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election.

With National Popular Vote, with every voter equal, candidates will truly have to care about the issues and voters in all 50 states and DC. A vote in any state will be as sought after as a vote in Ohio and Florida. Part of the genius of the Founding Fathers was allowing for change as needed. When they wrote the Constitution, they didn’t give us the right to vote, or establish state-by-state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes, or establish any method, for how states should award electoral votes. Fortunately, the Constitution allowed state legislatures to enact laws allowing people to vote and how to award electoral votes.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

National Popular Vote will ensure that every voter is equal, and politically relevant to the candidates, everywhere, in every presidential election, and the candidate who received the most popular votes will become president.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended. This is what National Popular Vote would change.

National Popular Vote allows individual states to use their unqualified and absolute right to have the Electoral College accomplish a goal that more than two-thirds of Americans, throughout the country, have consistently supported since polling on this began in 1944.

States enacting National Popular Vote replace their state or district winner-take-all laws to guarantee every vote, everywhere, in every election matters to the candidates, is equal and counts, and the candidate with the most votes in the country wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

National Popular Vote is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

The current statewide winner-take-all rule (used by 48 of the 50 states) is not in the Constitution. It was not the Founders’ choice (having been used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789). It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention, and it was not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The Founders were dead for decades before the winner-take-all rule became prevalent.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

Maybe you missed the part that the US is a federal union and presidential elections are the sum of fifty separate elections. NPV can't be forced on the states and the so-called compacts are constitutionally dubious.

The US would still be a federal union.The bill preserves state control of electionsThe National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

Presidential elections would still be the sum of fifty separate state and DC elections.We would vote state by state. All the votes cast in every state would be added to the national total for those candidates and would contribute to the overall winner.

National Popular Vote cannot be and is not forced on the states.The National Popular Vote bill has been introduced in legislatures in all 50 states and DC. The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, and large states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

Article I-Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution specifically permits states to enter interstate compacts. In fact, there are hundreds of major compacts currently in force (and thousands of minor ones).

It makes the State control irrelevant, and indeed contrary to the spirit of the system.If the goal is to have every vote be equal, how can that be done with 50 distinct methods of counting the vote?More, how can it be done when, for example, some States allow felons to vote and others do not?

No, your proposal would turn the fifty separate States into nothing but electoral districts that could be modified at the whim of the federal government.

With National Popular Vote, every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

State control would be relevant and real.

There is nothing incompatible between differences in state election laws and the concept of a national popular vote for President.

The U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II). The Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution permit states to conduct elections in varied ways. The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and preserves state control of elections and requires each state to treat as "conclusive" each other state's "final determination" of its vote for President.

You believe the federal government would change the Constitution and change state boundary lines?

If by "decades" you mean "about 40 years", then sure.If however you mean, as it would appear by your invoking the Founders, something along the lines of "100-150 years", then you are wrong.Statewide winner take all elections were used by all but one state by 1832, with only four instances driven by unusual circumstances.

As the wording of the Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method, it stands that there is no actual Constitutional disparagement of winner take all systems.

Whether or not it was the preferred method is irrelevant, as the Constitution clearly contains numerous compromises.

The point is and was that the Founders were dead, and everyone should know in this discussion that they did not design and have a stake in preserving the state winner-take-all system we have today.

The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (which is what would be changed with National Popular Vote).

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

A shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.

Except they were not all dead when States began using the winner take all popular vote system.And the Founder did design the electoral system.Which means they absolutely did NOT give their imprimatur to a national popular vote.

I have not said the Founders gave their imprimatur to a national popular vote.

I said they were all dead for decades before the winner-take-all rule became prevalent.

I said the Founders did not give their imprimatur to the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

Therefore, the Founders did not design the electoral system the states use today for awarding electoral votes.

Please stop twisting the facts and I won't have to keep pointing it out.

When you assert that the Founders did not support the system you oppose you suggest that they did support the system you support.That is false.Whatever the Founders may have supported it is clear there is one thing they did not support, and that is a national popular vote.Therefore, invoking them for guidance, whatever we might do to replace the current system, the one thing we should not consider at all is a national popular vote.

No. I have never suggested that the Founders support the National Popular Vote bill. I have shown by their words and actions that the Founders did not support any method for states to award their electoral votes. I have quoted from the Constitution, where the the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Actually, prior to arriving at the eventual wording of section 1 of Article II, the Constitutional Convention specifically voted against a number of different methods for selecting the President, including ● having state legislatures choose the President,● having governors choose the President, and ● a national popular vote. After these (and other) methods were debated and rejected, the Constitutional Convention decided to leave the entire matter to the states.

The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

Yes you have.And you can keep doing it here."They didn't approve the current system! Look at our alternate system!"Just because you do not say it outright does not mean you are not suggesting it by omission.

I have said the Founders did not design or use the current system in which the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states.

I have described the issues of the current system and the merits of the National Popular Vote plan.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

The point is and was that people in this discussion should understand that with the current system of electing the President

1) None of the states requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state's or district’s electoral votes,

2) Now, it could only take winning in 11 states to win the Presidency. Votes in the rest of the country would not help any other candidate to win. It does not require a majority or plurality of states or the national popular vote to win the presidency.

Which means that referring to the Founders is disingenuous on your part.And your redacting of the history of the development of the system is a deliberate attempt to mislead.And your playing with statistical outliers is pure fearmongering.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution.State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, after the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. The current statewide winner-take-all rule (used by 48 of the 50 states) is not in the Constitution. It was not the Founders’ choice (having been used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789). It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention, and it was not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution.

I am noting actual facts and figures. If they instill fear, then you should be heartened that states can change their method of awarding electoral votes.

Yes, left to the individual States.Not left to the States to collude with each other, in contravention of the Constitution.Nor left to the States to disparage the individual rights of the resident citizens by subjecting their votes to the influence of non-residents.

The winner take all system you are promoting is not in the Constitution.It is categorically rejected by the Constitution.To use a national popular vote in combination with the electoral system, which awards electors based on both population, which is not directly proportional, plus existence as a separate State, is to absolutely make votes of different individual value.

You are dissembling and misrepresenting facts and figures.You are using your false representations to instill fear.The actual facts and figures, which I am promoting, are instilling fear only in you.

An interstate compact is not a conspiracy but a mechanism provided by the U.S. Constitution that enables sovereign states to enter voluntarily into binding contractual arrangements with one another.

National Popular Vote is not "in contravention of the Constitution."

No citizens would have their individual rights "disparaged." The National Popular Vote compact would treat votes cast in all 50 states and the District of Columbia equally. A vote cast in a compacting state is, in every way, equal to a vote cast in a non-compacting state. The National Popular Vote compact does not confer any advantage on states belonging to the compact as compared to non-compacting states. A vote cast in a compacting state would be, in every way, equal to a vote cast in a non-compacting state.

The current state winner-take-all system is not in the Constitution. The National Popular Vote plan is not in the Constitution.Neither system was universally adopted or mandated or prohibited by the Founders during or after the Constitutional Convention. They left the choice of method for awarding electoral votes to the individual state legislatures to decide and change, as wanted.

From 1932-2008 the combined popular vote for Presidential candidates added up to Democrats: 745,407,082 and Republican: 745,297,123 — a virtual tie. Republicans have done very well in the national popular vote.

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.

The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former Congressmen John Buchanan (R–Alabama), and Tom Downey (D–New York), and former Senators David Durenberger (R–Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R–Utah).Supporters include former Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)

Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee

The Nebraska GOP State Chairman, Mark Fahleson

Michael Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of New York State

Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:"A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College."

Some other supporters who wrote forewords to "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote" include:

Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She was the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.

James Brulte the California Republican Party chairman, who served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.

Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002

Dean Murray was a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.

Thomas L. Pearce served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.

&&&

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

An even worse abuse of statistics.The Presidential election is not based on the average of the votes of the past 19 elections, but the sum of the votes of a single election.

While there was a significant movement in 1969, it remains that it failed because it could not achieve the 3/4ths majority required for a Constitutional Amendment.After complaining that 23% of the population could elect a President previously, you now insist we ignore the 3/4ths requirement in favor of some theoretical system of allowing States representing 51% of the electoral votes, which could be a mere 26% of the electorate to institute an Amendment level alteration to the structure of the federal government.

Which is a completely irrelevant figure unless for some reason elections were decided by averaging the votes of previous elections.That makes the citation completely irrelevant except for any effect it has to distract people from the actual facts.

The facts are:From 1932-2008 the combined popular vote for Presidential candidates added up to Democrats: 745,407,082 and Republican: 745,297,123 — a virtual tie. Republicans have done very well in the national popular vote.

National Popular Vote is not "an Amendment level alteration to the structure of the federal government."

It does not force the U.S. to change its structure of the federal government.

The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied.It adds up votes of all voters in each state and the candidate with the most popular votes from the states wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states).

Enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment.The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

National Popular Vote is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

The National Popular Vote is very much an Amendment level alteration to the structure of the federal government.You admit this yourself when you cite the effort in 1969 which was an attempt at an amendment.This brings the amount of deception your are using to promote this system to an outrageous level.

Enacting National Popular Vote requires either an Amendment, just as was required to change to every state using a popular vote, or Congressional approval for a multi-state compact.

If you want the current system to be changed by State laws again, then you should be advocating for the repeal of the 24th Amendment.You aren't.Instead you want to impose a change in how State elections are run.Yet another example of the dishonesty in your presentation.

Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent.

The U.S. Constitution provides:"No state shall, without the consent of Congress,… enter into any agreement or compact with another state…."

Although this language may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can "not be read literally." In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:"Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.

"The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta."

Specifically, the Court's 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:"Looking at the clause in which the terms 'compact' or 'agreement' appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States."

The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…."

In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:"The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States"

The National Popular Vote compact would not "encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" because there is simply no federal power -- much less federal supremacy -- in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.

The National Popular Vote bill is not the 1969 constitutional amendment for direct election of the president.

National Popular Vote is a state law. With National Popular Vote, the Electoral College would still elect the President.

National Popular Vote changes nothing in the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

It does not abolish the Electoral College.

A constitutional amendment was NOT required to change to every state using a popular vote.State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.

National Popular Vote would replace current state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states).

Since its origination in 2006, the National Popular Vote bill has been introduced in legislatures in all 50 states. The website has been up for 8 years. The 1st Edition of "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote," available online for free, was published in February 2006, and the 4th Edition was published in February 2013. The book has been sent to state legislators in every state. More than 2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the National Popular Vote bill. The bill has been publicly debated and passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Republican, Democratic, and purple states with 250 electoral votes, , including one house in Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9). The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

National Popular Vote is a state law, replacing state laws for awarding electoral votes.

National Popular Vote is not a constitutional amendment.

A constitutional amendment is not needed.

National Popular Vote doesn't change anything in the Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law.

Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

No, National Popular Vote is a multi-State law, superseding State laws and the Constitution as to the awarding of electoral votes.This would, to any reasonable person, require a Constitutional Amendment to achieve.Being unable to manage that you resort to disinformation and outright deceit to promote your preferred interference with the Constitution.

The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. It would replace current state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes, enacted after the Constitution was written.

National Popular Vote does not "interfere" with the Constitution.The Constitution does not mandate how states award their electoral votes.The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…."

If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.

Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states.

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. The candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote. National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

And unable to pass a Constitutional Amendment, you would engage an unconstitutional compact among the States, bypassing the approval required for such a process, to impose a change under the pretense of upholding the spirit of a republican government.

National Popular Vote does not want or need to pass a constitutional amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

National Popular Vote, a state law, will ensure that every voter is equal, and politically relevant to the candidates, everywhere, in every presidential election, and the candidate who received the most popular votes will become president.

Of course it doesn't want a Constitutional Amendment.That would interfere with the ability to enact similar Constitutionally limited multi-State compacts that would have an effect on the people of the several States who do not support such backdoor changes to the Constitution.The real question is what are those other changes you will seek once you get this test case passed.

National Popular Vote is only committed to preserving the Electoral College, while guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate who earns the most votes in all fifty states.

National Popular Vote will resolve the problems it’s intended to resolve – it will ensure that every voter is equal, and politically relevant to the candidates, everywhere, in every presidential election, and the candidate who received the most popular votes will become president.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current state laws that award all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, and large states with 250 electoral votes.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, mischief, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

The 500,000 fraudulent votes in CA in 2000 would have changed the outcome as well under NPV. Indeed it makes vote fraud more likely-its easier to rig one election than fifty separate elections. Also states can if they choose to do so have their electors bound by proportionate voting.

And in what way will a national vote obviate any of that potential for fraud, mischief, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression?

A very few people will still be able to change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number votes in the battleground of the United States.500K votes is chicken feed on a national scale, and even 5M votes isn't going to be all that hard when the full number of districts involved is considered. Indeed that number means that fewer instances of fraud would be needed at any particular polling station, allowing the fraud to be much more easily perpetrated and later concealed.

Rather than, let's say, concealing only 537 fraudulent votes, the fact remains, it would be far more difficult to conceal fraud involving five million votes, over, let's say, 10 thousand different places.

At any given time, there are about two dozen Republican and about two dozen Democratic state Attorneys General. Specifically, there were 26 Republican state Attorneys General and 24 Democratic Attorneys General in November 2012. There are also, at any given time, roughly two thousand Republican county prosecuting attorneys and roughly a thousand Democratic county prosecuting attorneys.

If conducting an election in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most popular votes guarantees corruption, then we should have seen a voluminous number of prosecutions for election fraud in presidential elections in battleground states (and in gubernatorial elections in all 50 states).

Where are the prosecutions?

We should surely have seen a voluminous number of prosecutions involving the tens of thousands of ballot boxes in these seven outcome-determining states in the period immediately following the 2008 election.

In November 2008, there were Republican Attorneys General in seven closely divided battleground states that Barack Obama carried. These states possessed more electoral votes (102) than Obama’s 95-vote margin of victory in the Electoral College in 2008: ● Colorado (9 electoral votes), ● Florida (27), ● Michigan (18), ● New Hampshire (4), ● Pennsylvania (21), ● Virginia (13), and ● Wisconsin (10). Were these seven Republican Attorneys General derelict in the period immediately following the November 2008 election in fulfilling their legal duty to prosecute crime in their own states?

Are these seven Republican Attorneys General also guilty of not promoting the interests of their own political party in attempting to prosecute cases of election fraud that would, at the minimum, embarrass (if not convict) members of the Democratic Party and embarrass the sitting Democratic President?

In November 2012, there were Republican Attorneys General in most of the battleground states that determined the outcome of the 2012 presidential election:● Florida—29 electoral votes, ● Ohio—18 electoral votes,● Virginia—13 electoral votes,● Wisconsin—10 electoral votes,● Colorado—9 electoral votes,● Pennsylvania—20 electoral votes, and● Michigan—16 electoral votes.

These seven battleground states with Republican Attorneys General together possessed 115 electoral Votes. President Obama won each of these battleground states by low-single-digit margins. In 2012, President Obama received only 64 more than the 270 electoral votes required for election.

Where are the successful prosecutions involving the tens of thousands of ballot boxes in these seven outcome-determining states in the 2012 presidential election?